Tag: lobbyists

New York Times report on AIPAC hides a central truth about Israel’s unpopularity

At first glance, that recent New York Times article on AIPAC, the wealthy pro-Israel lobbying organization, may have looked promising. It ran on the front page of the Sunday print edition, the week’s most prominent location. It jumped inside, where it covered nearly an entire page. It was 53 paragraphs long. The byline indicated that 4 Times reporters had worked on the article.

But, astonishingly, not a single one of those 53 paragraphs explained that AIPAC’s efforts to influence American elections have changed dramatically in recent years. These days, the organization often actually hides its pro-Israel views, even though promoting Israel is the only reason it exists in the first place. Instead, it dumps money into political campaigns and frequently raises issues that have absolutely no connection to Israel and Palestine.

Let’s take, for example, the Democratic primary earlier this year for the House seat in New Jersey’s 13th Congressional district. AIPAC decided to target Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who had the temerity to mildly suggest that military aid to Israel should be “conditioned” on its human rights record. This site’s estimable Michael Arria succinctly explained how AIPAC acted:

“Of course, AIPAC can’t actually run ads telling Democratic voters to reject Malinowski for being sufficiently pro-Israel as the [Democratic] base has completely soured on the country, and lobbying groups supporting that relationship.

“So, the AIPAC-funded [television] ads attack Malinowski for allegedly supporting Trump’s immigration policies. The allegation stems from a 2019 vote, in which that year Congress passed a funding bill that included money for law enforcement at the southern border. Most Democrats, including Malinowski, backed the package.”

(In that race, AIPAC’s strategy backfired. It dumped $2 million into TV ads attacking Malinowski — which apparently damaged him enough so that Analilia Mejia, who is even more progressive on Israel/Palestine, won the Democratic primary, and is presently in Congress.)    

AIPAC’s new stealth strategy was by no means a secret. Both Politico and MS Now covered the New Jersey race, and revealed the Israel lobby’s behind the scenes maneuvering.

AIPAC deployed the same stealth strategy in August, when it helped defeat progressive former Rep. Cori Bush’s effort to win back her seat in Missouri’s Democratic primary. The pro-Israel lobby had already helped her opponent, Wesley Bell, two years before. This time around, AIPAC’s ads sidestepped Israel again, and instead emphasized Bush’s alleged missed votes in Congress and her supposed criticism of the Biden administration. 

So: how did 4 NYTimes reporters, who were handed 53 paragraphs of space, miss this vital Stealth AIPAC angle? How did the echelon of editors who reviewed the report also fail to do anything? The only plausible explanations are institutional bias and conscious whitewashing and self-censorship.

Keep reading

Mike Rogers Now Says He Welcomes AIPAC Support After Allies Previously Told Group To Butt Out

Republican Michigan Senate nominee Mike Rogers said during a Thursday debate that he welcomed support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) after allies previously reportedly discouraged the group from spending in the race.

Rogers’ allies told AIPAC in August not to advertise on his behalf after his rival Abdul El-Sayed defeated his primary opponent, Democratic Michigan Rep. Haley Stevens, who received backing from AIPAC, Axios first reported. The Republican nominee said during the debate that he welcomed all the help he could get to defeat El-Sayed.

“Do you welcome AIPAC’s public support given that you do support many pro-Israeli positions?” moderator Rick Albin, a west Michigan-based WOOD TV8 political reporter, asked.

“Anybody that wants to help my campaign, stop a guy who can’t condemn terrorism in our own country because he’s so close to the people who are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, I’ll take all of that help,” Rogers said.

Keep reading

Jasmine Crockett In Hot Water Legally After Boneheaded Move

Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s campaign-funded merchandise website advertised more than political swag: It offered lobbying services while the Texas Democrat was still serving in Congress, according to Zeteo.

The listing disappeared after the outlet contacted her office. Crockett’s spokesperson said she had not instructed anyone to put it there.

The offerings raised questions about congressional ethics and potential legal violations, experts told Zeteo.

Visitors to the website for Crockett’s merchandise line, “The Clapback Collection,” could find a button near the bottom that read “Political Consultant- Book Now,” according to the report.

Clicking through brought up options ranging from campaign strategy and management to government relations and lobbying. The menu also included communications and public relations, digital and social media work, and political risk management.

Crockett’s office said the site’s purpose was to sell campaign merchandise.

“This website is and has always been focused on selling campaign merchandise,” a Crockett spokesperson told Zeteo. “The Congresswoman has only advertised it for merchandise and did not build it,” they continued. “She never directed anyone to add the button you are inquiring about.”

The solicitation appeared by May, roughly two months after Crockett lost her Senate bid in March, according to Zeteo.

The report also drew a jab from progressive commentator Ryan Grim.

“Not waiting until you leave congress to start lobbying is impressive,” Grim wrote on X.

Keep reading

Pharma Spent Record $456.9 Million Last Year on Lobbying — With No Signs of Slowing Down

Big Pharma set a new record for lobbying spending in 2025 — and 2026 is shaping up to be another year of big spending, as the industry seeks to influence U.S. healthcare policy.

The pharmaceutical and health industry combined spent $456.9 million on lobbying expenses in 2025, according to OpenSecrets, up 16.7% from 2024. According to The Boston Globe (citing STAT), it was the largest-ever single-year increase in lobbying spending.

This spending was part of what OpenSecrets called a “record” $868 million in lobbying outlays by the healthcare sector in 2025.

Big Pharma’s leading trade group — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) — led the way, spending nearly $38 million on lobbying last year, a 22% increase from 2024, according to Politico. PhRMA was joined by “nine of the 13 U.S. drugmakers on the Fortune 500,” who reported “their highest spending in at least a decade” on lobbying.

There are no signs of a slowdown. OpenSecrets data show the pharmaceutical industry has reported $245.7 million in lobbying expenses so far this year, part of the $459.3 million the health sector overall has spent in 2026.

PhRMA spent a reported $19.8 million in lobbying expenses in 2026, ranking third among business and trade organizations this year — a position it also held in 2025, when it spent $38.19 million.

Among drugmakers, Eli Lilly has spent over $7 million on lobbying this year. Pfizer has spent $6.62 million, and Merck has spent $6.58 million.

According to OpenSecrets, PhRMA’s record spending bucked the overall trend, in which “some of Washington’s biggest spenders, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors, cut back from their 2024 lobbying expenditures.”

Keep reading

Former Congressman Sentenced To 10 Years In Federal Prison After Secretly Lobbying For Foreign Regime And Laundering Millions

A former U.S. congressman will now spend a full decade behind bars after being handed a 10-year federal prison sentence on Friday.

Former Florida politician David Rivera was slapped with the decade-long sentence after being convicted of secretly acting as an unregistered foreign agent for a hostile regime, failing to register under FARA rules, and conspiring to launder tens of millions of dollars tied to the illicit scheme.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported in May, Rivera and Nuhfer were found guilty by a federal jury following a trial that exposed the secret Venezuela-linked lobbying arrangement.

The previous Gateway Pundit report detailed prosecutors’ allegations that Rivera and Nuhfer accepted millions connected to the Maduro government while concealing the relationship and using Rivera’s political connections to pursue Venezuela’s interests in the United States.

Rivera had faced a statutory maximum of as much as 60 years behind bars following his conviction.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Melissa Damian handed down the 120-month sentence on October 2 following Rivera’s conviction on conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), violating FARA, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and four counts involving transactions in criminally derived property, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Rivera, 61, represented Florida as a Republican in the U.S. House from 2011 to 2013.

Keep reading

DHS Chief Markwayne Mullin Under Fire After Declaring ICE Is NOT Arresting Illegal Aliens at Kansas Worksites Following Reported Pressure from Powerful Agriculture Lobby

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin is drawing heavy fire from conservative watchdogs and immigration patriots after issuing a startling public declaration that federal enforcement officers will not be targeting illegal immigrants at commercial worksites across Kansas.

The explosive statement came directly on the heels of mounting pressure from major agriculture and livestock lobbies, leaving grassroots conservatives asking why federal immigration law is seemingly being carved out for big corporate interests.

According to reporting from NewsNation’s Ali Bradley, DHS clarified its position on social media, asserting that ICE is deliberately avoiding sweeping worksite operations in the Jayhawk State.

Keep reading

AIPAC’s Network Has Already Spent $67.2 Million to Shape the Midterm Elections

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, has been spending tens of millions of dollars on political races during the current election cycle, aiming to defeat progressive candidates who are critical of Israel and who express support for Palestinians. Many voters might not even be aware of this, because AIPAC-funded ads and mailers often omit any mention of Israel, even though fostering U.S. support for Israel and electing pro-Israel candidates are among the group’s driving aims.

AIPAC’s lobbying and electoral network has so far spent $67.2 million during the current election cycle, up from $29.3 million during the 2021-2022 cycle. These huge amounts of spending have been dedicated to trying to defeat candidates like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Aisha Wahab in California, Melat Kiros in Colorado, and many others.

AIPAC has a range of affiliated and aligned Super PACs and other entities. Some of the most significant ones are AIPAC PAC, the group’s political action committee, which raises money to contribute directly to candidates; United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s super PAC, which raises and spends much more money on elections independently; and Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) PAC, which is aligned with AIPAC and specifically focuses on Democratic races.

While there are many donors to AIPAC’s electoral influence operation, a small handful of billionaire megadonors — Wall Street tycoons, entertainment moguls, oil and gas barons, sports franchise owners, and others — provide a hugely disproportionate amount of the donations to the key AIPAC and AIPAC-aligned super PACs to intervene in primary and general elections.

AIPAC’s massive electoral spending comes at a time when support for Israel is plummeting in the U.S., especially among Democrats, amid the genocide in Gaza, intensifying settler attacks in the West Bank, and decades of illegal occupation.

Keep reading

Lobbyist for China-Owned Smithfield Foods Failed to Disclose CCP Ties on Farm Bill Filings

Greenberg Traurig lobbyist Christopher DeLacy spent quarter after quarter telling Congress that no foreign entity had an interest in Smithfield Foods’ Washington work, including Farm Bill reauthorization and “issues related to foreign ownership of agricultural land,” while the company is 86.9 percent owned by China-based WH Group, 万洲国际, whose leadership includes CCP-tied figures and chairman Wan Long, a former PLA soldier.

Independent journalist Laura Loomer exposed the failure to disclose CCP ties in a report on Loomered.

The Center for Responsible Food Business filed a complaint over the foreign ties with the House Clerk and Senate Secretary last month. The form had indicated no foreign ties repeatedly since 2023.

Just over two weeks after the complaint was filed, the firm amended its second-quarter 2026 Lobbying Disclosure Act report, which covered $120,000 in lobbying of the House, Senate, and Treasury.

Smithfield is the largest pork producer on U.S. soil and holds tens of thousands of acres of American farmland.

Keep reading

Why Has Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart Consistently Aligned With Morocco? Questions Grow Over Family Lobbying Ties and Spain Policy

For decades, Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) built his reputation as one of Congress’s strongest anti-communist voices and a champion of freedom for Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

Today, however, many Spaniards—particularly conservatives and defenders of Spain’s territorial integrity—are asking a different question: Why has one of America’s most influential Hispanic Republicans repeatedly advanced positions that closely align with Morocco’s claims against a NATO ally?

The controversy intensified after Díaz-Balart publicly stated that the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla are “in Moroccan territory,” with language reflecting that position later appearing in a House Appropriations Committee report associated with legislation under his jurisdiction.

Spain’s government immediately rejected the characterization, reaffirming that Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain.

Those statements did not emerge in a vacuum.

Public records show that the late Lincoln Díaz-Balart—Mario’s brother and a former member of Congress—received approximately $1.2 million through his consulting firm from the Moroccan American Center for Policy, an organization registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) to represent Moroccan interests in Washington.

The contract specifically prohibited lobbying Mario Díaz-Balart or his congressional staff, and no public evidence shows that Mario himself received Moroccan funds or violated any lobbying laws.

Nevertheless, the overlap between the family’s documented lobbying ties, Mario Díaz-Balart’s longstanding advocacy for Morocco in Congress, and his repeated engagement with Catalan separatist leaders has fueled criticism in both Spain and the United States.

Spanish media, political commentators, and citizens have increasingly criticized Díaz-Balart’s position, arguing that it undermines the territorial integrity of one of America’s oldest allies while closely tracking Morocco’s diplomatic narrative.

His remarks have generated widespread backlash across Spain’s political spectrum and become a flashpoint in U.S.-Spain relations.

The underlying facts are no longer in dispute: a documented family lobbying relationship with Moroccan interests, a congressional record consistently favorable to Rabat, repeated meetings with Catalan independence leaders, and public statements questioning Spain’s sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla have placed Mario Díaz-Balart at the center of one of the most contentious foreign-policy debates affecting America’s relationship with Spain.

Keep reading

Massie’s AIPAC Act Targets Israel’s Foreign-influence Loophole

A Republican primary in Kentucky’s 4th District has become a national test of money, loyalty, and foreign influence in Washington.

Representative Thomas Massie, a strong constitutionalist, is fighting for his political survival against Trump-endorsed Ed Gallrein. But the contest is no longer merely local. It has become a proxy battle over Israel, AIPAC, and the power of donor networks to punish lawmakers who break from Washington’s foreign-policy consensus.

As pro-Israel groups spend heavily to unseat him, Massie answered with legislation. Last Thursday, he introduced the Americans Insist on Political Agent Clarity Act, or AIPAC Act. The bill arrives as a transparency measure and poses a sharp question: When does a domestic lobbying group become a vehicle for a foreign state’s interests?

The Bill

Massie’s bill would amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, known as FARA. The law already requires certain agents of foreign principals to register with the Justice Department (DOJ) and disclose their work. Massie’s proposal targets what he calls a loophole for U.S.-based organizations that do not directly receive foreign-government money or instructions, yet lobby in ways that principally benefit a foreign nation.

The bill says FARA should cover “any organization, association, corporation, or other entity” organized under U.S. law that “does not directly receive funding or instruction from a foreign government,” but whose “lobbying activities or stated mission” seek to influence U.S. policy “in furtherance of the political or economic interests of a foreign country.” It also allows DOJ to examine “objective indicia,” including “repeated advocacy” aligned with a foreign government’s diplomatic goals, “coordination with foreign officials,” foreign strategic guidance, or even whether the lobbying activity uses the name of a foreign nation.

The bill also creates a new complaint mechanism. “Any citizen of the United States may file a complaint with the Department of Justice requesting investigation of potential violations,” the text says. That provision would give citizens a formal path to trigger DOJ review, though the department would still control enforcement.

In his announcement, Massie stressed that the measure “does not ban speech, restrict advocacy, or prohibit Americans from supporting foreign allies.” However, he said,

Americans have a right to know when powerful lobbying organizations are advancing the interests of foreign governments in Congress…. [The bill] simply ensures transparency. If an organization is heavily engaged in influencing U.S. policy in ways that principally benefit a foreign country, it should be required to register under FARA.

The bill itself echoes that argument. It states that FARA serves “compelling interests in national security and transparency” and says disclosure requirements do not abridge speech or association.

Keep reading